Red River Delta Provinces Phủ Lý, Hà Nam, 24/05/2013 What is PAPI? A policy monitoring tool for middle-income Viet Nam The largest nationwide governance and public administration survey in Viet Nam Second annual iteration monitoring changes in government performance Voice of Vietnamese citizens about governance and public administration experiences Since 2010 more than 32,500 citizens surveyed In 2012 alone: 13,747 citizens A provider of evidence and data to policy makers and a complement to self-assessments and other surveys 1
What does PAPI measure? PAPI measures how citizens experience implementation of policies, laws and regulations in six dimensions: 1. Participation at Local Levels 2. Transparency 3. Vertical Accountability 4. Control of Corruption 5. Public Administrative Procedures 6. Public Service Delivery PAPI is a barometer of performance Overview of National Trends 2
Overall Progress: Improvement in Four Dimensions PAPI provides an overview of performance nationwide. On the positive side, rises in scores of 4 out of 6 dimensions indicate some level of improvement. Dimensions with slight improvement are control of corruption, transparency, public service delivery and accountability. Dimension sc cores (scale 1 to 10) 7 5 3 1-1 -3 5.30 5.47 5.61 5.50 5.58 5.69 5.84 5.16-2.66 Dimension 1. Participation at Local Levels 2011 Mean 2012 Mean 2011-2012 Change (percentage) 2.54 2.59 Dimension 2. Transparency 1.41 Dimension 3: Vertical Accountability Dimension 4: Control of Corruption* 6.88 6.87 6.75 6.90-0.17 Dimension 5: Administrative Procedures 229 2.29 Dimension 6: Public Service Delivery 7 5 3 1-1 -3 change 2011-2012 Percentage Improvements in Dimension Scores (lowest, median and maximum provinces) Dimensional scores of half of the country have marginally edged higher. On every dimension the median score slightly increased in 2012 compared to 2011. On average, Vietnamese citizens experienced better local governance and public services in 2012 compared to 2011. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Dimension 1. Participation at Local Levels Dimension 2. Transparency Dimension 3: Vertical Accountability Dimension 4: Control of Corruption Dimension 5: Administrative Procedures Dimension 6: Public Service Delivery 3
PAPI 2012 Key Findings at Provincial Level by Dimension Participation at Local Levels: 4 Levels of Performance 4
Participation at Local Levels (Dimension 1) 6 7 Civic Knowledge Quality of Elections Opportunities for Participation Contributions 3 4 5 0 1 2 Thai Binh Ha Nam Bac Ninh Hung Yen Ha Noi Hai Duong Nam Dinh Hai Phong Ninh Binh Year-on-Year Changes in Participation at Local Levels (2012-2011) 25 20 15 10 5 0-5 -10-15 -20-25 Son La Dak Lak Dong Thap Lang Son Long An Khanh Hoa Dong Nai Ba Ria Vung Tau Quang Tri Lai Chau Thua Thien Hue Hoa Binh Quang Binh Ben Tre HCMC Soc Trang Ca Mau Dien Bien Phu Yen Ha Noi Hai Duong Gia Lai Dak Nong Bac Ninh An Giang Tuyen Quang Thanh Hoa Bac Lieu Quang Ninh Kien Giang Ninh Thuan Hau Giang Vinh Phuc Bac Kan Nam Dinh Ninh Binh Tra Vinh Kon Tum Nghe An Can Tho Bac Giang Vinh Long Quang Ngai Da Nang Hai Phong Quang Nam Phu Tho Cao Bang Thai Nguyen Binh Dinh Lam Dong Ha Tinh Yen Bai Lao Cai Ha Giang Binh Duong Hung Yen Binh Phuoc Ha Nam Tien Giang Thai Binh Binh Thuan Tay Ninh 5
Participation at Local Levels: Key Findings Half of the country improved, other half declined Most provinces changed within the range ± 5% In the region, improvement >5% seen in Thái Bình, Hà Nam, Hưng Yên Top five: Binh Dinh, Thai Binh, Binh Phuoc, Ha Nam and Ha Tinh (Binh Dinh already had a top position in 2011, the other four moved up significantly). Biggest improvement: Thai Binh, Binh Thuan, Tay Ninh jumped about 15% Bottom group: Dak Lak, Dong Thap, Phu Yen, Bac Lieu and Ca Mau (all were in 2011 in the bottom third too). Biggest decline: Son La, Dak Lak, Dong Thap, Lang Son worsened 15-20% Transparency: 4 Levels of Performance 6
Transparency (Dimension 2) 6 7 Poverty Lists Communal Budgets Land-Use Plan/Pricing 3 4 5 0 1 2 Thai Binh Ha Nam Nam Dinh Ha Noi Hai Phong Hung Yen Ninh Binh Hai Duong Bac Ninh Year-on-Year Changes in Transparency (2012-2011) 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Dak Lak Tra Vinh Khanh Hoa Son La Ha Tinh Ca Mau Dong Nai Binh Thuan Yen Bai Hai Duong Lang Son Thua Thien Hue Dak Nong Bac Ninh HCMC Dong Thap Hoa Binh Ba Ria Vung Tau Ben Tre Can Tho Bac Lieu Bac Giang Bac Kan Kien Giang Nam Dinh Lao Cai Thai Nguyen Quang Nam Gia Lai Thanh Hoa Dien Bien An Giang Tuyen Quang Nghe An Long An Ha Noi Lai Chau Soc Trang Quang Ninh Vinh Phuc Binh Dinh Ninh Binh Binh Phuoc Quang Binh Kon Tum Da Nang Tay Ninh Vinh Long Ninh Thuan Quang Tri Quang Ngai Binh Duong Cao Bang Hung Yen Hai Phong Hau Giang Thai Binh Ha Giang Ha Nam Lam Dong Phu Yen Phu Tho Tien Giang 7
Transparency: Key Findings 26 provinces improved more than 5%. Among them 5 improved 20-25% (Ha Nam, Phu Tho, Phu Yen, Lam Dong, Tien Giang) In the region, improvement >5% seen in Hà Nam, Thái Bình, Hải Phòng, Hưng Yên, Ninh Bình Still, on average only 19% of population aware of land plan (ranging from 4% in Tra Vinh to 48% in Ha Nam) Land plans has the least transparency, only 1/3 of the one of poverty list Top five: Quang Binh, Quang Tri, Thai Binh, Ha Nam and Nam Dinh (Ha Nam and Nam Dinh have made a big improvement) Bottom five: Tra Vinh, Binh Thuan, Bac Lieu, Kien Giang, Dak Lak (Tra Vinh, Binh Thuan, Bac Lieu and Kien Giang were already in the bottom third in 2011) Vertical Accountability: 4 Levels of Performance 8
Vertical Accountability (Dimension 3) Interactions With Local Authorities 6 7 People's Inspection Boards Community Investment Boards 3 4 5 0 1 2 Thai Binh Hai Duong Nam Dinh Ha Nam Ha Noi Hung Yen Ninh Binh Hai Phong Bac Ninh Year-on-Year Changes in Vertical Accountability (2012-2011) 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Kien Giang Khanh Hoa Hoa Binh Quang Tri Long An Ha Tinh Bac Lieu Dong Thap Thanh Hoa Dien Bien Yen Bai Thua Thien Hue Ninh Thuan Bac Ninh Nghe An HCMC Tra Vinh Tay Ninh Bac Giang Dak Lak Dong Nai Quang Ninh Phu Tho Binh Thuan Binh Duong Kon Tum Lam Dong Tien Giang Lai Chau Can Tho Ha Nam Quang Ngai Ca Mau Ba Ria Vung Tau Dak Nong Vinh Phuc Tuyen Quang Da Nang Nam Dinh Thai Nguyen Quang Binh Binh Dinh Quang Nam Son La Ha Noi An Giang Ben Tre Phu Yen Lao Cai Lang Son Ninh Binh Gia Lai Binh Phuoc Vinh Long Hai Duong Thai Binh Bac Kan Ha Giang Hau Giang Hai Phong Hung Yen Soc Trang Cao Bang 9
Vertical Accountability: Key Findings About 1/3 of the country improved at least 5%, while 9 provinces declined more than 5%. In the region, improvement >5% seen in Hưng Yên, Hải Phòng, Thái Bình, Hải Dương, Ninh Bình và Hà Nội Top five: Thai Binh, Quang Binh, Hai Duong, Nam Dinh and Quang Tri (all among the top in 2011 except Hai Duong) Cao Bang, Soc Trang, Hung Yen, Hai Phong and Hau Giang are the five with the largest improvement (up to 12%) Bottom end: Kien Giang, Khanh Hoa, Bac Lieu, An Giang and Tay Ninh (all were also in the bottom third in 2011). Kien Giang and Khanh Hoa declined more than 12%. Critical findings: Nation-wide, only 33% are aware of the existence of People s Inspection Board, 17% are aware of the existence of Community Investment Supervision Board Control of Corruption in the Public Sector: 4 Levels of Performance 10
Control of Corruption in the Public Sector (Dimension 4) 6 7 Limits on Public Sector Corruption Equity in Employment Limits on Corruption in Service Delivery Willingness to Fight Corruption 3 4 5 0 1 2 Ha Nam Ninh Binh Thai Binh Nam Dinh Hai Duong Bac Ninh Hung Yen Ha Noi Hai Phong Year-on-Year Changes in Control of Corruption (2012-2011) 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Dien Bien Khanh Hoa Bac Lieu Lai Chau Binh Duong Yen Bai Ca Mau Dong Nai Kien Giang Dong Thap Ninh Thuan Long An Quang Binh Ba Ria Vung Tau Soc Trang Kon Tum Son La An Giang Lang Son Thai Nguyen Dak Nong Ben Tre Lao Cai Binh Dinh Ha Tinh Hoa Binh Tuyen Quang Tien Giang Hai Phong Dak Lak Quang Nam Ha Noi Thanh Hoa HCMC Hai Duong Nam Dinh Can Tho Binh Thuan Thua Thien Hue Ha Giang Nghe An Gia Lai Quang Ngai Da Nang Binh Phuoc Bac Kan Hau Giang Hung Yen Vinh Phuc Vinh Long Tra Vinh Phu Tho Quang Tri Tay Ninh Thai Binh Cao Bang Quang Ninh Lam Dong Ha Nam Bac Ninh Phu Yen Ninh Binh Bac Giang 11
Control of Corruption: Key Findings Overall dimension increased 2.59% from 2011, a large 5.72% improvement in the willingness to fight corruption. But improvements in limiting corruption in public sector (including equity in employment) and service delivery were negligible. Very polarizing picture: some improved around 20% (Bac Giang, Ninh Binh and Phu Yen), while other worsened 15% (Dien Bien, Khanh Hoa, Bac Lieu). 25 provinces improved more than 5%, 13 declined more than 5%. In the region, improvement >5% seen in Ninh Bình, Bắc Ninh, Hà Nam, Thái Bình và Hưng Yên. Top five: Tien Giang, Binh Dinh, Long An, Da Nang and Soc Trang. Most of the top performers are in the south and south central, like 2010 and 2011 Bottom five: Dien Bien, Khanh Hoa, Lai Chau, Ninh Thuan, Cao Bang (all were also in the bottom third in 2011) Citizen Perception of Six types of Corruption Zero Dien Bien Khanh Hoa Hai Phong Ha Noi Lai Chau Kien Giang Yen Bai Ninh Thuan Cao Dong Nai Dak Nong Kon Tum Dak Lak Quang Ninh An Giang Hai Duong Quang Ngai Bang Ha Giang Thai Nguyen Lao Cai Bac Ninh Hung Yen Bac Lieu Quang Binh Nghe An Nam Dinh Ha Tinh Thanh Hoa Hoa Binh Thai Binh Lam Dong Ca Mau Binh Phuoc Binh Thuan Binh Duong No Diverting of Public Funds No Bribes for Land Title No Bribes at Hospital No Bribes for Teachers Favors No Kickbacks on Construction No Bribes for State Employment Tuyen Quang Vinh Phuc Gia Lai TT-Hue BRVT Dong Thap Can Tho Phu Yen Tay Ninh Tra Vinh Bac Giang Ha Nam Ninh Binh HCMC Phu Tho Ben Tre Quang Nam Lang Son Bac Kan Hau Giang Son La Long An Binh Dinh Da Nang Quang Tri Vinh Long Soc Trang Tien Giang Perfect (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements; Perfect =100% agreement) Similar to what was found in PAPI 2011, no province is close to the perfect star graph displayed in the bottom-left corner. Central and southern provinces seem to be better at mitigating corruption in the public sector (Tien Giang, Soc Trang, Vinh Long, Quang Tri, Da Nang, Binh Dinh and Long An). Once again, Tien Giang and Soc Trang score closest to the perfect scores, indicating consistency in their performance on all six measures. 12
Level of Nepotism at Provincial Level Zero Khanh Hoa Ninh Thuan Lai Chau Dak Lak Yen Bai Cao Bang Lao Cai An Giang Dien Bien Can Tho Hai Phong Bac Lieu Kien Giang Hau Giang Lam Dong Tay Ninh TT-Hue Lang Son Tra Vinh Bac Giang Ha Tinh Son La Dak Nong Nghe An Quang Tri Quang Ninh Land Registry Commune Justice Officer Policeman Teacher People's Committee Phu Yen Kon Tum Binh Phuoc Dong Nai Thai Nguyen Ninh Binh Vinh Long Bac Ninh Dong Thap Hai Duong Tien Giang Hoa Binh Hung Yen Da Nang Tuyen Quang Ha Giang Ben Tre Binh Duong Soc Trang Thanh Hoa Ha Noi Binh Thuan Bac Kan Ca Mau Quang Binh Phu Tho HCMC Quang Ngai Thai Binh Nam Dinh Gia Lai Quang Nam Ha Nam Binh Dinh Long An BRVT Vinh Phuc Perfect (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing that personal relationship is important and very important; Perfect =100% disagreement) Bribes for jobs in the public sector are prevalent across provinces. At the national level, only 39.07% deny the need to pay bribes for public sector employment, a slight decline as compared to 2011. Apart from bribes for jobs, nepotism in recruitment of civil servants and public employees is also prevalent, as constantly found in the previous two annual surveys. This observation has been confirmed through each of the PAPI surveys over the past three years, and confirms the systemic nature of nepotism in public sector employment, even at the lowest level of government. The largest star, which is Vinh Phuc, is only one-fifths of the perfect star graph that depicts zero relationship necessary for employment. Public Administrative Procedures: 4 Levels of Performance 13
Public Administrative Procedures (Dimension 5) Certification Procedures Construction Permit 7 8 Land Procedures Personal Procedures 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hai Phong Nam Dinh Ha Nam Ninh Binh Thai Binh Hai Duong Ha Noi Hung Yen Bac Ninh Year-on-year Changes in Public Administrative Procedures (2012-2011) 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Ba Ria Vung Tau Binh Duong Dong Nai Quang Ninh Lai Chau Bac Ninh Ninh Thuan Ca Mau Quang Tri Binh Phuoc Kien Giang Long An Soc Trang Nam Dinh Dong Thap Hung Yen Bac Kan Bac Giang Tay Ninh Bac Lieu Lam Dong Ha Tinh Quang Binh Thanh Hoa Khanh Hoa HCMC Ha Noi Dak Lak Hau Giang Thai Nguyen Phu Yen An Giang Ninh Binh Dak Nong Ben Tre Da Nang Gia Lai Nghe An Vinh Long Binh Dinh Binh Thuan Ha Giang Kon Tum Hoa Binh Tuyen Quang Lang Son Cao Bang Thai Binh Tra Vinh Hai Phong Vinh Phuc Phu Tho Son La Thua Thien Hue Ha Nam Yen Bai Dien Bien Quang Ngai Hai Duong Can Tho Quang Nam Tien Giang Lao Cai 14
Public Administrative Procedures: Key Findings Small variations: difference between best (Yen Bai) and worst (Quang Ninh) is smallest of all dimensions. In the region, improvements >5% seen in Hải Dương and Hà Nam Little changes compared to 2011: 50 provinces changed within the ± 5% range. Tien Giang and Lao Cai improved between 12-15%, while Ba Ria- Vung Tau declined 11%. Top five: Yen Bai, Da Nang, Lao Cai, Quang Binh, Kon Tum (only 1 city among five!) Bottom five: Quang Ninh, Lai Chau, Soc Trang, Khanh Hoa, An Giang (no regional pattern) Assessment of Quality of Certification Services Zero Kien Giang Lai Chau Binh Duong Soc Trang Quang Ngai Lam Dong Cao Bang Bac Ninh Dak Lak An Giang Dien Bien Bac Giang Tay Ninh Khanh Hoa Bac Lieu Binh Phuoc Tuyen Quang Lang Son Ca Mau HCMC Can Tho BRVT Hau Giang Nghe An Yen Bai Binh Dinh TT-Hue Gia Lai Phu Yen Dak Nong Vinh Long Dong Nai Binh Thuan Bac Kan Hoa Binh Thanh Hoa Quang Nam Quang Binh Dong Thap Hai Phong Quang Ninh Thai Binh Ninh Thuan Tra Vinh Clear Information Fees Displayed Officials Competent Treated w/respect Paperwork Reasonable Clear Deadline Deadline Met Satisfied w/service Son La Da Nang Hai Duong Ninh Binh Kon Tum Lao Cai Ha Tinh Thai Nguyen Phu Tho Ha Giang Long An Ha Noi Nam Dinh Quang Tri Ha Nam Ben Tre Hung Yen Tien Giang Vinh Phuc Perfect Hoàn toàn đúng (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements; Perfect =100% agreement) Respondents are satisfied with the certification services. National mean of this indicator is 7.14, which is close to the maximum score. Half of provinces score between 5.38 (Kien Giang) and 7.38 (Dong Nai), while Vinh Phuc emerges as a best performer in this indicator. At the provincial level, more provinces see improvement in all eight criteria, as shown in the near-perfect shapes of the star graphs representing the top twenty provinces 15
Assessment of Construction Permit Application Procedures Zero Tuyen Quang HCMC Gia Lai Dak Lak Quang Nam Hai Phong Binh Phuoc Ha Noi Dong Nai Lai Chau Bac Lieu Nghe An Can Tho Dien Bien An Giang Dak Nong Thanh Hoa Da Nang Binh Dinh Kon Tum Tien Giang Phu Yen Quang Binh Vinh Phuc Perfect Note: Provinces listed here are those with more than 15 applicants in the total sample having applied for the construction permits (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements; Perfect =100% agreement) Clear Information Fees Displayed Officials Competent Treated w/respect Paperwork Reasonable Clear Deadline Deadline Met Satisfied w/service Significant variation across provinces with >15 applicants. Compared with Vinh Phuc, Quang Binh and Phu Yen, Tuyen Quang and Ho Chi Minh City are exceptionally poor. Examples: Dong Nai receives complaints from applicants about not publicizing application fees and not meeting deadlines. Lai Chau has issues with the clarity of information about procedures, fees and charges. Dak Nong faces issues with unpublished fees. Quang Nam has complaints about cumbersome paperwork and the attitude and competence of civil servants. Assessment of LURCs Application Procedures Zero Ha Giang Lai Chau HCMC Tuyen Quang Yen Bai Bac Ninh Hoàn toàn không đúng An Giang Bac Kan Ha Noi Kien Giang Hai Duong Hoa Binh Quang Tri Nam Dinh Tay Ninh Dong Nai Binh Thuan Cao Bang Ha Tinh Thai Nguyen Kon Tum Lang Son Gia Lai Thanh Hoa Ninh Binh Vinh Phuc Soc Trang Clear ThôngInformation tin rõ ràng về thủ tục cần Fees Phí làm được Displayed niêmyết công khai Officials Công chức Competent thạo việc Treated Công chức w/respect có thái độ lịch sự Paperwork Không quáreasonable nhiều giấy tờ Clear ĐượcDeadline hẹn rõngàynhận kết quả Deadline Nhận được Met kết quả như lịch hẹn Satisfied Hài lòng w/service với dịch vụ nhận được Nghe An Dak Nong Ca Mau BRVT Lam Dong Dong Thap Binh Phuoc Long An Tien Giang Dien Bien Ben Tre Quang Binh Dak Lak Phu Tho Bac Giang Vinh Long Hau Giang Perfect Hoàn toàn đúng Note: Provinces listed here are those with more than 15 applicants in the total sample having applied for the construction permits (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements; Perfect =100% agreement) Remarkable difference across provinces with >15 applicants Poorest ten performers in all eight criteria are mostly northern provinces, with the exception of Ho Chi Minh City, An Giang and Kien Giang. Best performers however have uneven performance levels. Examples: Hau Giang seems to have weaknesses in transparency in fees and charges, and of timely service delivery. Paperwork remains cumbersome in Vinh Long. Bac Giang has made significant improvement in competence of civil servants as compared with 2011, while the province needs to enhance transparency of application fees. 16
Assessment of Commune-level Administrative Procedures Zero Lai Chau Quang Ngai Binh Duong Tay Ninh Bac Ninh Binh Thuan Binh Phuoc An Giang Hoàn toàn không đúng Ha Noi Kien Giang Cao Bang Dak Lak Khanh Hoa Quang Nam Lam Dong Dak Nong Dong Nai Son La Yen Bai Quang Ninh Ninh Binh Nghe An Tuyen Quang Hau Giang Ha Giang TT-Hue Long An Ha Nam Thanh Hoa Bac Kan Bac Lieu Lang Son Vinh Phuc Soc Trang Lao Cai BRVT Kon Tum Phu Tho Hoa Binh Dien Bien Ninh Thuan HCMC Gia Lai Hai Duong Clear Information Fees Displayed Officials Competent Treated w/respect Paperwork Reasonable Clear Deadline Deadline Met Satisfied w/service Hung Yen Phu Yen Dong Thap Ha Tinh Ca Mau Can Tho Binh Dinh Quang Tri Tra Vinh Thai Nguyen Quang Binh Bac Giang Thai Binh Tien Giang Hai Phong Nam Dinh Da Nang Vinh Long Ben Tre Perfect Hoàn toàn đúng On total quality, there is uniformity in commune level performance - relatively high level of satisfaction with these services nationwide Quảng Ngãi performed poorly in all eight criteria measured, while Ben Tre takes over Ba Ria-Vung Tau s 2011 top position in this indicator. (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements; Perfect =100% agreement) Public Services Delivery: 4 Levels of Performance 17
Public Services Delivery (Dimension 6) 7 8 Health Infrastructure Education Law and Order 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 Hai Phong Nam Dinh Hai Duong Ha Noi Bac Ninh Thai Binh Hung Yen Ninh Binh Ha Nam Year-on-year Changes in Public Service Delivery (2012-2011) 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Tay Ninh Tra Vinh Son La Ha Tinh Ca Mau Quang Ninh Vinh Phuc Long An Gia Lai Khanh Hoa Ha Noi Ba Ria Vung Tau Lang Son Ben Tre Dong Thap Phu Tho Kien Giang Bac Giang An Giang Binh Dinh Hai Phong Quang Tri Soc Trang Quang Nam Hai Duong Dak Lak Cao Bang Nghe An Bac Ninh Tuyen Quang Da Nang Kon Tum Hoa Binh Vinh Long Hau Giang Can Tho Bac Lieu Thanh Hoa Thai Binh Dong Nai Quang Ngai Bac Kan Lao Cai Dak Nong Quang Binh Ninh Binh Tien Giang HCMC Lam Dong Hung Yen Yen Bai Binh Duong Thai Nguyen Lai Chau Ninh Thuan Ha Nam Dien Bien Phu Yen Binh Phuoc Binh Thuan Nam Dinh Thua Thien Hue Ha Giang 18
Public Service Delivery: Key Findings Da Nang, Hai Phong, HCM City and Ha Noi are in the top third, like 2011. The poorest performers are scattered in northern mountainous, central highlands, south central, and southern provinces. In the region, improvement >5% seen in Thua Thien-Hue. Slight improvement of 2.29% in the dimensional scores; significant increase of 5.83% on infrastructure. Most provinces changed within the ± 5% range, Ha Giang, Thua Thien-Hue, Nam Dinh improved most. Tay Ninh, Tra Vinh and Son La see the largest decline. Citizens' Assessment of District Public Hospitals Zero Bac Giang Dak Nong Quang Ngai Hau Giang Quang Tri TT-Hue Ninh Binh Ha Giang Thai Binh Hai Duong Nghe An Kon Tum Ha Nam Dak Lak Ha Tinh Bac Ninh Dong Thap Gia Lai Thai Nguyen Ha Noi Dong Nai Quang Ninh Hung Yen Lang Son Quang Nam Binh Duong Phu Tho Vinh Long Soc Trang Khanh Hoa Bac Lieu Hai Phong HCMC Tay Ninh Lam Dong Binh Phuoc Long An An Giang BRVT Phu Yen Ninh Thuan Lai Chau Binh Dinh Binh Thuan Kien Giang Quang Binh Thanh Hoa Yen Bai Vinh Phuc Hoa Binh Dien Bien Ca Mau Da Nang Can Tho Tuyen Quang Nam Dinh Cao Bang Bac Kan Ben Tre Lao Cai Tien Giang Tra Vinh Shared beds Electric fan Clean restroom Regular visits by staff Treated with respect Reasonable expenses Reasonable waiting period Disease/Injury cured Private Pharma Satisfaction with service Poorer provinces (e.g. Son La, Tra Vinh, Tien Giang and Lao Cai) are among the top ten performers in this indicator. Son La Perfect Richer provinces like Bac Giang, Thua Thien-Hue and Hai Duong are among the ten lowest performers. (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements; Perfect =100% agreement) Among the five centrally-managed municipalities, Can Tho and Da Nang are among the top ten, while Ho Chi Minh City, Hai Phong and Ha Noi are among the average group. 19
Citizens' Assessment of Public Primary Schools Zero Ha Tinh Dak Lak Khanh Hoa Hai Duong Binh Phuoc Tay Ninh TT-Hue Bac Ninh Yen Bai Dak Nong Binh Thuan Lai Chau Nghe An BRVT Quang Ninh Son La Ninh Binh Quang Ngai Tra Vinh An Giang Vinh Phuc Long An Ha Giang Vinh Long Hung Yen Kon Tum Quang Nam Dong Nai Binh Duong Tuyen Quang Lam Dong Kien Giang Hau Giang Soc Trang Cao Bang Dong Thap Ha Noi Ca Mau Ninh Thuan Binh Dinh Nam Dinh Tien Giang Gia Lai Phu Yen Bac Kan Can Tho Bac Lieu Ben Tre Ha Nam Bac Giang Lao Cai Thai Nguyen Da Nang Thanh Hoa Lang Son Dien Bien Quang Tri Thai Binh HCMC Phu Tho Hoa Binh Hai Phong Quang Binh Perfect (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements; Perfect =100% agreement) Brick Walls Clean Toilets Free Drinking Water Less than 36 students Less than 3 shifts No favoritism from teachers Well qualified teachers Regular feedback Informed of school revenue Provinces have different strengths and weaknesses with public primary schools. Top ten provinces are from different economic development backgrounds (e.g. Quang Binh, Hai Phong, Hoa Binh, Phu Tho and Ho Chi Minh City). Most complained about aspects in Quang Binh, whose score is closest to the perfect, are teacher bias towards school children taking extra classes, insufficient classes resulting in three shifts and crowded classes. The same weaknesses are seen in Hai Phong and Ho Chi Minh City. Aggregate PAPI 2012 by Province 20
Dashboard of Six Dimensions of PAPI 2012 Khanh Hoa Kien Giang Bac Lieu Lai Chau Dak Lak An Giang Ca Mau Dien Bien Tay Ninh Dong Nai Tra Vinh Ninh Thuan Binh Thuan Dong Thap Cao Bang Bac Ninh Ha Giang Soc Trang Phu Yen Quang Ninh Dak Nong Yen Bai Ninh Binh Tuyen Quang Quang Ngai Hau Giang Bac Giang Kon Tum Hung Yen Thai Nguyen Hai Phong Hoa Binh Can Tho HCMC TT-Hue Lam Dong Participation/Elections Transparency Accountability Control of Corruption Administrative Procedures Public Service Delivery Gia Lai Ben Tre Tien Giang Vinh Phuc Ha Noi Nghe An Son La Binh Duong Lao Cai Thanh Hoa Quang Nam Lang Son Ha Tinh Hai Duong BRVT Long An Vinh Long Bac Kan Phu Tho Binh Phuoc Quang Tri Nam Dinh Ha Nam Da Nang Binh Dinh Thai Binh Quang Binh Zero Perfect Hoàn hảo (Each branch size = level of dimensional performance on the scale from 1-10 per dimension) Dashboard helps identify weaknesses even in high-performing provinces. For instance, Quang Binh, while the most consistently high-performing province, has room for improvement on control of corruption. Da Nang, another top-performing performing province, demonstrates weakness in the areas of participation at the local levels and transparency. Lowest performing location, Khanh Hoa, scores relatively well on public service delivery. Tay Ninh is another low performer, which is consistent with 2011, presents strength in public administrative procedures, but lags behind other dimensions Control Panel of Provincial Performance by Dimensions Province D1. Participation at local levels D2. Transparency D3. Vertical Accountability D4. Control of Corruption D5. Public Admin. Procedures D6. Public Service Delivery Hưng Yên 5.599 5.786 5.868 5.715 6.722 6.815 HảiDương 5.434 5.591 6.777 5.775 6.991 7.143 Thái Bình 6.120 6.772 6.962 6.067 7.098 6.882 Hải Phòng 5.364 6.136 5.379 4.966 7.316 7.439 Nam Định 5.399 6.676 6.565 6.049 7.212 7.331 Ninh Bình 4.917 5.632 5.460 6.119 7.110 6.778 BắcNinh 5.723 5.116 5.358 5.732 6.578 6.917 Hà Nam 5.989 6.725 6.383 6.446 7.121 6.609 Hà Nội 5.507 6.263 6.057 5.399 6.868 7.020 Color code: Best performer Above 75th percentile Low Average Between 25th and 50th percentile High Average Between 50th and 75th percentile Poor Performer Below 25th percentile 21
Mapping overall PAPI 2012 scores by Quartiles (unweighted) Year-on-year Changes in Overall PAPI 2012 (unweighted) 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Sơn La Cà Mau Hà Tĩnh Đắk Nông Khánh Hòa Đồng Tháp Yên Bái Đắk Lắk Đồng Nai Long An Hòa Bình Lạng Sơn Tiền Giang Bà Rịa Vũng Tàu Kiên Giang Gia Lai Nghệ An Bạc Liêu Hải Dương Bắc Ninh Lai Châu Quảng Ninh Bến Tre Điện Biên Quảng Bình Thanh Hóa Bắc Kạn Thái Nguyên Cần Thơ Tây Ninh Quảng Trị Hà Nội Lào Cai Bình Định Kon Tum Sóc Trăng Bắc Giang Tuyên Quang Vĩnh Phúc Bình Phước Nam Định Ninh Thuận An Giang Bình Dương Phú Thọ Quảng Nam Bình Thuận Trà Vinh Thừa Thiên Huế Tp. Hồ Chí Minh Quảng Ngãi Thái Bình Lâm Đồng Đà Nẵng Hậu Giang Vĩnh Long Cao Bằng Hà Nam Hưng Yên Ninh Bình Hải Phòng Phú Yên Hà Giang 22
Aggregate PAPI 2012: Key Findings 55 provinces improved, although only 36 jumped more than 5%. In the region, improvement >5% seen in Hải Phòng, Ninh Bình, Hưng Yên, Hà Nam, Thái Bình, Nam Định and Hà Nội. ộ On the other hand, the declines (of 8 provinces) are within 5%. Top five: Quang Binh, Thai Binh, Binh Dinh, Da Nang, Ha Nam. Quang Binh: top position 2 years in a row Bottom five: Khanh Hoa, Kien Giang, Bac Lieu, Lai Chau, Dak Lak (all in bottom third in 2011, but Dak Lak declined most) Da Nang (10% improvement, best performing group), now far ahead of HCM City (7% improvement, high averaged group), and Hanoi (only 3% improvement, high averaged group). Thank you for your attention! For more information, please visit www.papi.vn www.facebook.com/papivn 23